The Fermi Paradox and SETI Success

Paul J Gans wrote:

In talk.origins John Harshman wrote:
....
Yes, one solution would be for all civilizations to render themselves
undetectable very soon after becoming detectable. This assumes they
don't go in for travel or communication, and never make noticeable
changes to their habitat (like Dyson spheres and such). It seems to me
that this assumption would require humans to be a very unusual sort of
intelligence, because we're going to go in for communication and travel
as soon as we figure out how, if we don't collapse first.

Other civilizations might well be signalling us like mad using
techniques we've not yet invented.

Or techniques we have abandoned? Semaphores?
--
John S. Wilkins, Postdoctoral Research Fellow, Philosophy
University of Queensland - Blog: scienceblogs.com/evolvingthoughts
"He used... sarcasm. He knew all the tricks, dramatic irony, metaphor,
bathos, puns, parody, litotes and... satire. He was vicious."

In talk.origins Friar Broccoli wrote:
On Aug 14, 1:06 am, John Harshman
wrote:
Friar Broccoli wrote:
On Aug 13, 8:38 pm, John Harshman
wrote:
K_h wrote:
Fermi's paradox suggests that there are little or no other intelligent
civilizations within the Milky Way galaxy. On the other hand, intelligent
life should exist on a substantial fraction of planets with life because
natural selection broadly increases intelligence with time.

.

Does it? News to me. What evidence do you have that this is the case?

.

There has been an increase in the intelligence of a broad range of
species on earth with time.

Has there? What broad range, exactly? And if natural selection
broadly increased intelligence with time, we would expect all
species to be undergoing this push, wouldn't we?

I don't see how this follows at all. I would expect different
species to adopt widely differing strategies depending on
circumstances. In plants, intelligence would be a complete
waste of resources. Others like Starfish and Jellyfish have
used other strategies to ensure they can navigate and persist in
their environments without needing intelligence.

The definition of evolutionary success is reproduction. Using
that paradigm I conclude that intelligence, however defined,
is totally useless for evolutionary success.

No, I'm not just being cute. Take a deep breath and look around
at the most successful life forms.


Brains are one method for allowing adaptive behaviour which in
turn allows creatures to harvest an often wide range of
resources, while avoiding a wider range of dangers in an
increasingly complex environment. (Not all species need or use
this strategy, just as not all use hard parts, or get really
big or whatever.)

However, we note that many non-mammels, including plants, have
managed to survive quite nicely without that sort of adaptive
behavior.

And none of this considers other forms of intelligence.

--
--- Paul J. Gans

["Followup-To:" header set to talk.origins.]
On 2008-08-14, K_h wrote:


Fermi's paradox suggests that there are little or no other intelligent
civilizations within the Milky Way galaxy. On the other hand, intelligent
life should exist on a substantial fraction of planets with life because
natural selection broadly increases intelligence with time. Here on the
Earth, for example, numerous mammals have a high degree of intelligence and
many of them could reach human intelligence with a few more million years of
evolution.

It may only take a few hundred thousand more years for humans to become
intelligent!

Honestly, this paragraph is just puffery. Saying that natural selection
broadly increases intelligence with time is just absurd. It does nothing
of the sort.

This contradiction can be resolved if the origin of life is far harder than
commonly believed.

It can be solved by tweaking any of the terms of Drake's equation (which
incidently never was an argument against Fermi's paradox in the first place).

That is, in the Drake equation, f_L should be far
smaller than most people think it is. Even on planets that are life
friendly the formation of life should be extremely rare for the below
reasons.

For life to start, a molecule must arise that can make approximate copies of
itself. Once that happens then natural selection can work its magic. But a
molecule that can make approximate copies of itself must be a fairly
sophisticated nano-machine being comprised of dozens, if not hundreds, of
molecules and it must arise via inorganic and non-evolutionary processes.

This is an assertion, and one not supported by any evidence. The first
replicators need not have been so complex.

From the study of DNA and genes, it is known that all life on the Earth has
a common origin (undoubtedly from a molecule of the aforementioned kind).
Since Earth is a life friendly planet, why hasn't another molecule (of the
aforementioned kind) arisen?

There may have in fact been many kinds of replicators. All we know is that
all current life forms to date seem to have descended from a last common
ancestor that was based upon DNA. DNA has proved to be a rather good thing
as far as replication goes, and DNA organisms now seem to fill all available
niches.

If it had, then life on the Earth would have
organisms with two different molecules for genetic codes: DNA and something
else.

Since all Earthly life is based on DNA, this suggests that, over the four
billion years of life on Earth, this has never happened again.

It suggests nothing of the sort. It suggests that nothing has been able to
out reproduce the DNA-based organisms that already exist in virtually every
niche on the planet. Other, primitive replicators could be forming all the
time, but quickly go extinct.

That is,
over the last four billion years, no other molecule has arisen by inorganic
and non-evolutionary processes that can make approximate copies of itself.
And Earth is a life-friendly planet so chances are optimal that such a
molecule should arise.

Another meaningless assertion. It's hard to say that Earth is life-friendly
or optimal with any precision. The Earth itself isn't exactly uniform in its
ability to support life.

This suggests that the formation of such a molecule is a very rare event.
In other words, the reaction rate of inorganic chemistry per square meter
times the surface area of the Earth, times the average depth such reactions
take place, times four billion years is , much less, than the number of
such reactions needed before an approximately self reproducing molecule
arises by chance.

If that first molecule had not arisen here on the Earth then the Earth would
probably have been lifeless ever since.

This also is a misleading statement. There was likely no first molecule, for
more or less the same reason as their being no first Frenchmen.

This same reasoning applies if life
first started somewhere else in the solar system and then migrated to Earth
(for example from Mars). If life rose independently on Mars once, over the
past four billion years, then that suggests that the reaction rate of
inorganic chemistry per square meter, times the surface area of a Mars sized
world, times the average depth such reactions take place, times four billion
years is about the number needed so that an approximately self reproducing
molecule arises by chance once, ~ 1.


It seems too much of a coincidence that the laws of chemistry work out in
such a way that life arises, on average, once per terrestrial world per
several billion years.

Perhaps your problem arises from the silliness of the "probability"
calculation that you did.

Rather, for such cases, it seems much more likely
that life arises multiple times or almost never. The latter possibility
makes sense from a combinatorial perspective. A self reproducing molecule
will be composed of dozens to hundreds of other molecules.

A molecule is a molecule. It is not composed of molecules, it is composed
of atoms.

But the total
number of permutations for such a molecule's components will far exceed the
total number of inorganic chemical interactions that take place per
terrestrial world per several billion years.

Sigh.

A simple combinatorial thought experiment explains why. The number of ways
of stacking a deck of playing cards is so huge that if 67.8 billion solar
masses were converted entirely into protons then each proton stands for a
different way of stacking the deck.

Yep. That's about right.... I'm braced for lunacy here...

But there are 92 naturally occurring
chemical elements and a self reproducing molecule will probably be composed
of hundreds of atoms from the set of 92 different kinds (there only 52 cards
in a playing deck).

Uh, no. Chemistry is not a card game.

So, in the Drake equation, f_L could be something really small like 10^-90.

Or, it could be 10^-2. Nobody knows what it is.

In this case the fact that life exists on the Earth simply shows that the
universe is super huge and its true size far exceeds the visible universe.

It does nothing of the sort.

General relativity says that the universe sits on top of an infinite amount
of gravitational potential energy.

No, it doesn't.

During both cosmic inflation and dark
energy inflation the universe falls down its own gravity well converting
huge quantities of its gravitational potential energy into vacuum energy and
expansion energy. This probably explains why the universe is so huge.

Sigh.

So the universe could contain 10^150 planets, for example. If f_L is 10^-90
then the total number of planets in the universe that have life is around
10^60. So there are a lot of planets with life out there but none of them
are close by.

You don't know that. Nobody does.

So this is one possible explanation for why there is only one
example of life in the solar system.

You don't know this either.

And this explanation is consistent
with Fermi's paradox. It also suggests that any other life in our solar
system got there via migration.

You don't know this either.

In light of all this, it cannot be concluded that water, oxygen, and
methane, for example, are indicators of extraterrestrial life.

Did someone say they were?

The presence of these simple gases in the atmospheres of other planets
can easily be explained by inorganic processes.

If Earth is the only planet in 10^150 with life then that suggests that the
universe is fine tuned for Earthly life.

It seems odd to conclude that if life exists on only 1 in 10^150 planets, that
the universe itself is tuned for Earthly life. Just what the heck are all
those other planets for?

If a substantial fraction of the
10^150 planets have life then that suggests the whole universe is finely
tuned for life. If the universe if not fine-tuned for life then that
suggests the number of planets with life should be around the logarithmic
middle of 10^150 or around 10^75.

This is really highly entertaining.

In conclusion, it seems there are lots of planets with life out there but
none of them will ever communicate with humans.



k

Paul J Gans wrote:

The definition of evolutionary success is reproduction. Using
that paradigm I conclude that intelligence, however defined,
is totally useless for evolutionary success.

That's not logical. The same argument "proves" that sex,
multicellularity, DNA, lipid membranes and mitochondria
are "totally useless for evolutionary success".
--
__________
|im |yler http://timtyler.org/ Remove lock to reply.

Timberwoof wrote:

I suspect that just as when one system of biochemistry establishes the
pattern of life, things that use it will eat anything else that shows
up, it is likely that when one highly intelligent species shows up, it
will limit the opportunities for anything else to evolve into sentience.

Whales are not "highly intelligent", then?
--
__________
|im |yler http://timtyler.org/ Remove lock to reply.

'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank wrote:

I quite disagree witht his part. Indeed, I think "intelligence",
particularly in the form of the "technological intelligence" required
for SETI, is an abject evolutionary failure. In our short tenure as a
species, and even in our microscopic-timed tenure as a technological
species, we've managed to produce the largest mass extinction since
the Cretaceous, and have put not only our own survival as a species at
risk, but the very existence of nearly the entire biosphere within
which we live.

Right. Six billion humans and going strong and we are a *failure*?!?

What on earth does it take to be a success?
--
__________
|im |yler http://timtyler.org/ Remove lock to reply.

On Aug 15, 1:18*am, John Harshman mumbled:

That was Chris. B's second bizarre, stream-of-consciousness post in this
thread. What newsgroup does he/she usually live in, and is he/she always
like that?

Merely pointing out the gaping flaws in the acceptance that the human
race is an optimised intelligence.Thanks to "man's" intelligence
working alone we are on the brink of destroying our only home. Most of
our human population enjoys utterly apalling living conditions with a
large fraction suffering constant hunger and an almost stone age
existence. Only a vanishingly small minority truly enjoy any degree of
security in their comfortable existence. And their sopoilt offspring
are feeling so guilty they hide their pain in drugs ad self abuse. No
form of poltical organisation yet tried has provided reasonable
stability, security and equality except for the left-of-center
Scandinavian form of proportional representation. This is now under
severe threat from economic immigration and a massive move to the
political right to try and limit the damage already done. The vast
majority of the human race which is actively employed has a totally
pointless job intended only to keep them employed and ensure the
wealth passes constantly upwards to the very few. Our rituals and
superstitions are holding back billions from an active and productive
life by actually doing something useful for the human race. Or at the
very least causing it no obvious harm. Woman's present place in our
male-organised world is utterly incomprehensivbe for a planet on the
edge of the precipice. Do you advocate more of the same as we don our
diving suits and brace ourselves against mass exctinction? Only to be
replaced by the same petty "biggest ape" warlord system which has
flourished since man fell out of a tree onto his head. Basically, we
are all ****ed. No Drake equation and sciencespeak jousting online is
going to save the planet.The dominant male ape is just that and plays
the part to the full. Even down to the narrow set eyes and bulging
eyebrow ridges. (you couldn't make it up!) Bizzarre? Yes of course. To
someone without the slightest grasp of the dangers now facing this
particular "intelligent species". Our personal security is no higher
than at any time in history and much of the worlds GNP is spent on
protecting the economically strong from the billions of weak and
hungry. Our perfomance as a race is pathetic based on the present and
past ability to support the general population in comfort and limit
dangerous expansion and inevitable conflict for resources. We have no
capacity for avoiding war because of the veto right of the most
corrupt governments/arms dealers on the planet. Who have always
managed to swing the entire planet's orbit around their advantages of
natural resources thanks to the economic habits of the great white
shark. Dangerous monopolies abound. Not least in the communication of
the daily misery to the entire planet's population. The superrich,
superright own the TV stations, the papers and the magazines. Their
record of sharing the truth and ensuring natural justice is no better
than apalling. Our planet's ability to surive our human plague is
growing literally weaker by the moment. Species are dropping like
flies. We cannot even offer survival to the prettiest and cuddliest
animals on the planet! Yet we have several guns and a ton of
amunition for every man, woman and child still scraping a.living from
the bare, parched earth with their fingernails. The status quo is
locked down and nothing must veer the superrich, superright from
enjoying the fruits of the labours of others. Human cooperation is a
farce fousted by top down ideas. Our whole world can be thought of as
a South American banana republic crossed with Wallmart and CocaCola
all writ large. Our streets become increasingly dangerous as
governments introduce yet more surveillance systems and forces and
restrict our freedoms in the name of safety. Bin Laden was bought
incredibly cheaply considering how he helped them to armour themselves
against public protest. We prod the billions of poor with a sharp
stick and endlessly deny them justice and peace and then call them
terrorists when they lash out in pain and frustration. Our dwindling
energy reserves are in the hands of the most evil men on the planet
without a shred of morality. There is no sign of a sea change in the
thinking of the ultra-right political puppeteers as they steer the
bobbing craft of self-seeking incompetents towards the roaring chasm.
If most of the human race were destroyed by an asteroid tomorrow the
few survivors would ape our present system to perfection. They have no
choice. They *are* apes. No lore and no less. Nothing could be more
bizarre than the present global set up and the imminent dangers we all
face. If we don't evolve from the "biggest male" dominates monkey
group soon you can kiss both your arses goodbye, John.

Me Bizarre? You Monkey!

On Aug 15, 7:44*am, Tim Tyler wrote:
'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank wrote:

I quite disagree witht his part. *Indeed, I think "intelligence",
particularly in the form of the "technological intelligence" required
for SETI, is an abject evolutionary failure. *In our short tenure as a
species, and even in our microscopic-timed tenure as a technological
species, we've managed to produce the largest mass extinction since
the Cretaceous, and have put not only our own survival as a species at
risk, but the very existence of nearly the entire biosphere within
which we live.

Right. *Six billion humans and going strong and we are a *failure*?!?

Compared to worms.

On Aug 15, 3:20*am, (John Wilkins) wrote:
Paul J Gans wrote:

In talk.origins John Harshman wrote:
...
Yes, one solution would be for all civilizations to render themselves
undetectable very soon after becoming detectable. This assumes they
don't go in for travel or communication, and never make noticeable
changes to their habitat (like Dyson spheres and such). It seems to me
that this assumption would require humans to be a very unusual sort of
intelligence, because we're going to go in for communication and travel
as soon as we figure out how, if we don't collapse first.

Other civilizations might well be signalling us like mad using
techniques we've not yet invented.

Or techniques we have abandoned? Semaphores?

No, John, the constellation Flagellum ("The Semaphorist") merely
coincidetntally has the /appearance/ of a humanoid figure making
exaggerated gesture-signals. Actually it is a natural formation.

For more examples see
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tainted...t_Cell_version
or
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heartbr...will.i.am_song)
depending upon generation.

(I wonder what Sean would make of it.)

Paul J Gans wrote:
The Drake equation assumes that the ETs will be blasting out
electromagnetic waves at a furious rate. *We* started doing
that only in around 1920 or so and already we are doing less
and less of it. By 2120 we could easily be using wired or
directed sources and no indiscriminate electromagnetic radiation
at all.

I'd look for industrial emissions, such as signals from the cross-
country electric power grid. But maybe we will quickly improve our
efficiency and reduce energy losses, or switch to a 100% hydrogen
economy.

I'm told that the United Kingdom is unique in having power demand
surges in the evening at particular times each day. This is because
certain television programmes have large numbers of viewers, and when
the programme breaks or ends, tea is brewed, by using electric
kettles. With digital choices, catch-up, and services such as
YouTube, this may soon change. (And anyway, I recently heard about it
once more from the people who broadcast the television programmes for
which claims are made.)